On May 14, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that, Steven Palladino pled guilty to 25 counts of criminal contempt charged by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts based on his repeated violations of court orders obtained by the Commission in its civil action filed in 2013 against Palladino and his Massachusetts-based company, Viking Financial Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). The SEC action charged that Defendants were operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The court in the SEC action entered orders with certain preliminary relief beginning in April 2013, including an asset freeze against Defendants. The U.S. Attorney alleged in April 2014 that Palladino knowingly and willfully disobeyed court orders in the Commission’s action that froze all of Defendants’ assets and required that Defendants deposit all funds in their possession into a court-ordered escrow account. Based on his guilty plea to these contempt charges, Palladino, who is currently serving a prison sentence based on convictions in state court for the same conduct alleged in the SEC charges in its case, could face additional incarceration.

On April 30, 2013, the Commission filed an emergency enforcement action against Defendants in federal district court in Massachusetts. In the SECs complaint, it is alleged that, beginning in April 2011, Defendants misrepresented to at least 33 investors that their funds would be used to conduct the business of Viking – which was purportedly to make short-term, high interest loans to those unable to obtain traditional financing. The SEC Complaint also claims that Palladino misrepresented to investors that the loans made by Viking would be secured by first interest liens on non-primary residence properties and that investors would be repaid their principal, plus monthly interest at rates generally ranging from 7-15%, from payments that borrowers made on the loans. The complaint alleged that Defendants actually made very few real loans to borrowers, and instead used investors’ funds largely to pay earlier investors and to fund the Palladino family’s lavish lifestyle.

When the SEC action was first, it sought a emporary restraining order and asset freeze. On April 30, 2013, the court issued a temporary restraining order, which included the asset freeze. On May 3, 2013, the court issued a revised SEC restraining order, which included the same SEC asset freeze. On May 15, 2013, the court ordered that Defendants deposit all funds in their possession into an escrow account. The SEC asset freeze and escrow order have remained in effect at all times since April 30, 2013 and May 15, 2013, respectively.

Between September 2013 and March 2014, the SEC filed four motions for civil contempt against Palladino. The Commission’s first motion for contempt, filed on September 4, 2013, alleged that Steven Palladino violated the asset freeze by transferring three vehicles that he owned (solely or jointly with his wife) into his wife’s name and using the vehicles as collateral for new loans – effectively cashing out the equity in these vehicles. The motion also alleged that Palladino violated the escrow order by failing to deposit the funds he received from this cashing-out process into the escrow account. On November 15, 2013, the court held Palladino in contempt and ordered that he restore ownership of the vehicles that he had transferred into his wife’s name. Subsequently, Palladino reported to the court that he had repaid all the new loans and restored ownership of two of the vehicles (but had failed to restore ownership of one vehicle). The SEC alleged that, in truth, the checks used to repay the new loans on the vehicles were all returned for insufficient funds. The SEC also filed three other contempt motions against Palladino charging that he obtained a loan for $6,750 from a Viking investor and failed to deposit this amount into the escrow account; he sold a truck owned by him for $9,500 and failed to deposit this amount into the escrow account; and he obtained new credit cards and ran up charges for cash advances, gold coins, luxury merchandise, and fine dining and failed to deposit the cash and other assets obtained into the escrow account – all in violation of the asset freeze and escrow orders. On April 10, 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office filed its criminal contempt charges against Steve Palladino. These charges arise from these same violations as the SEC charges, as well as Palladino’s refusal to comply with the civil contempt order entered by the court in November 2013. On April 18, 2014, the court terminated the Commission’s three outstanding motions for contempt against Palladino, in light of the criminal contempt charges filed against him.

On July 15, 2013, the court held that Defendants’ conduct violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. On November 18, 2013, the court entered orders that enjoined Defendants from further violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws and ordered them to pay disgorgement of $9,701,738, plus prejudgment interest of $122,370. On April 18, 2014, the court entered final judgment against Defendants, which included the injunctive relief, disgorgement and prejudgment interest described above, and ordered that the asset freeze and escrow orders would remain in full force and effect indefinitely.

On January 14, 2014, Steven Palladino pled guilty in Suffolk Superior Court to various state criminal charges based on the same conduct alleged by the Commission in its case. Palladino is currently serving a 10-12 year prison sentence for his state court convictions.

For further information please contact Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney at 101 Plaza Real South, Suite 202 North, Boca Raton, FL, (561) 416-8956, or by email [email protected] This information is provided as a general or informational service to clients and friends of Hamilton & Associates Law Group, P.A. and should not be construed as, and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that prior results discussed herein do not guarantee similar outcomes.